MK5060 Weblog

On 28 May 2010 MK5060 – full circle projects Ltd after seven years will (temporarily) close the doors of the Dutch office to start a new adventure. A new adventure with a new mobile office. This mobile office will leave The Hague on 5 June 2010 to travel by train to Ulan Ude in Russia. From Ulan Ude the mobile office will continue on bicycle to arrive 9 countries and 365 days later in Sydney, Australia. Our bicycle ride has a mission: a mission to enhance intercultural understanding and intercultural exchange. We translated this mission into a project: the exchange of legends, fairytales and recipes. Our currency for trading are the Dutch legends of Ellert & Brammert, The Flying Dutchman and The Lady of Stavoren and the quintessentialDutch recipes for apple pancakes, hete bliksem, hutspot and red cabbage. We are curious how, where and with whom we will share these legends and food. Curious to read our Dutch legends? Impatient to make our recipes? Then go to our site www.bike2culture.org, where you can also see our route. You can see us telling the legends and making the recipes on our youtube channel: bike2culture. Do you have a legend or fairytale that we should share? A recipe that we should try? Do you have friends living along our route that we should visit? Or do you want to meet us somewhere down our road? Tell us! During our journey you can contact us via info @ bike2culture. org. Our skype address is bike2culture. We love to hear your stories. If you send us your recipes and legends of your country, we will upload them on www.bike2culture.org under world wide contributions . Do note that we will not have continuous internet access so please be patient as we cycle to connect. 

This means that this blog will temporarily close. The articles I posted will remain accessible, but for the coming year there will be no new contributions. In stead we will use bike2culture. org as our blog.  

The Hunebed Museum in Borger, The Netherlands is awarded an international price for empathic archeology for their storytelling project, see: http://www.thebestinheritage.com/presentations/2009/hunebedcentrum,-netherlands,48.html Many congratulations on this marvellous achievement!

This is an article I recently wrote for New Zealand Futures Trust. Although it is somewhat long for a blog, I thought it interesting to share. 

Education on display

Nelson Mandela famously said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” This quote is the driving force, the mission, vision and ambition that motivates my activities as a consultant in the field of education, both formal and non formal for people from 3 to 83. Over the course of the nearly ten years that I have now been involved in this field, I have noted that education seems to be permanently on the move both literally and as a figure of speech. The two are closely interrelated, as both the literal part refers to the place where education takes places and the figure of speech part as the definition of what education is and how it is delivered, is shifting.

This article explores the future of formal and non-formal education, foscussing on the relation between museums and schools. In doing so it puts formal and non formal education and the relation betwene the two on display. The first section of this article puts the purpose of education center stage. Secondly the terms formal and non-formal education will be explored. Thirdly the article takes a closer look at the shifting balance between formal and non formal education. From this background in the fourth section I explore what the future of education might look like.

This article is meant to provide a broad view on education for policy makers and stake holders in the educational field. With this article I aim to extend an open invitation to those interested to start a discussion on the future of education in the Netherlands, New Zealand and - if at all possible- around the globe.

Purpose of education

What the purpose of education is, increasingly is the topic of a heated debate in the Netherlands, Europe and probably world wide. In this debate two main lines of thought can be distinguished.

The first line of thought sees the primary purpose of education in transferring skills and tools to students that enable them to be successful in the labour market, to make a contribution to the economy and to prepare them to adapt swiftly and flexibly to possibly changing demands. The end goal of this education is a problem solver who is capable of dealing with the changing demands of a continuously evolving business environment[1]. This line of thought has been prevalent in The Netherlands for the last decades as is for example signified by the development and implementation of the so called core goals in primary and secondary education. These core goals specify what a student should know and should be able to do at the end of primary school and, for secondary education: per subject[2].

The second line of thought puts emphasis on education as a formative process with the focus on the development of the student as a human being. It comes from a rather more humanist background and sees the primary purpose of education to uncover and develop the possibilities, interests, and capabilities in the student through bringing them in contact with cultural and historical sources of value. In this line of thought the focus is on life rather than on work. Aspects of life such as suffering, joy, disloyalty and friendship should be a part of the educational process and should be discussed, reflected on and lived[3]. These are aspects of a human life that are not manageable, but very much part of human life. It is the conviction of the proponents of this line of thought that when these aspects of life are systematically and structurally integrated into education, society as such will profit from it[4].

From my consultancy experience and from observation in my humble opinion these lines of thought are not mutually exclusive any more. The proponents of the second line of thought realise that it is important that skills and tools are of vital importance for a growing economy which is necessary to finance a blossoming public domain of which education is an important part. From recent debates in the media it has become clear that the proponents of the first line of thought understand that the skills and tools oriented approach is not sufficient to create citizens who share norms and values and who deliver a valuable contribution to the society as a whole.

By consequence the two lines of thought now seem to be in a phase where they are looking on how and where they can meet. This development is signalled amongst others by the increasing demand on topics to be included in the teaching programme of schools. Following several dramatic incidents on schools, amongst which the shooting of a teacher and fights between children in The Netherlands, there is also an increasing demand on schools to explicitly transfer norms and values to their students.

The meeting of the two lines of thought means that education is essentially becoming a two tiered enterprise[5] in which students both learn to adapt to an established world by being outfitted with skills and tools that will help them, but in which they also learn to continuously and consciously intervene and bring about change. It is precisely the latter which makes humans into ethical beings.

In addition to painting part of the educational landscape, this brief deliberation on the purpose of education makes emphasises that educational practices by nature are ethical and political. They are never neutral, but rather they are based on goals, ideas methodologies and ideals. Choices are and must be continuously made on the basis of these ingredients. This makes that education in essence is a profoundly ethical activity.

The geography of education: on formal, informal and non-formal learning

In the educational field a distinction is made between formal and non-formal education, and even sometimes informal education.

Formal education in the framework of this thesis follows the definition of Combs, Prosser and Ahmed and is taken to be “the hierarchically structured, chronologically graded 'education system', running from primary school through the university and including, in addition to general academic studies, a variety of specialized programmes and institutions for full-time technical and professional training[6]”.

The definition of non-formal education following UNESCO refers to “any organized and sustained educational activities that do not correspond exactly to the above definition of formal education. Non-formal education may take place both within and outside educational institutions, and may cater to persons of all ages. Depending on the context in a specific country, it may cover educational programmes to impart adult literacy, basic education for out-of-school children, life-skills, work-skills, and general culture. Non-formal education programmes do not necessarily follow the 'ladder' system, may have varying durations, and may or may not confer certification of the learning achieved”[7].

Informal education then by consequence refers to the truly lifelong process whereby every individual acquires attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and the educative influences and resources in his or her environment - from family and neighbors, from work and play, from the market place, the library and the mass media[8].

In addition to these definitions it might be interesting to have a brief look at the history of these terms. Apparently in 1967 at an international conference in Williamsburg USA, ideas were set out for what was to become a widely read analysis of the growing 'world educational crisis'. There was concern about unsuitable curricula; a realization that educational growth and economic growth were not necessarily in line with this, and that jobs did not emerge directly as a result of educational inputs. Many countries were finding it difficult either politically or economically or both to pay for the expansion of formal education. The conclusion was that formal educational systems had adapted too slowly to the socio-economic changes around them and that they were held back not only by their own conservatism, but also by the inertia of societies themselves. If we also accept that the development of educational policies tends to follow rather than direct other social trends, it follows that change would have to come not merely from within formal schooling, but from the wider society and from other sectors within it. It was from this point of departure that planners and economists in the World Bank began to make a distinction between informal, non-formal and formal education[9]. This is the same time when UNESCO can be seen as moving towards lifelong educations and notion of the learning society. From these parallel movements emerges the above defined distinction between educational systems.

Following Fordham[10] non-formal education can be characterized as follows:

1. relevance to needs of disadvantaged groups;

2. concern with specific categories of person;

3. a focus on clearly defined purposes;

4. flexibility in organization and methods.

The distinction made between formal and non-formal education is largely administrative. Formal education is linked with schools and training institutions; non-formal with community groups and other organizations; and informal covers what is left, e.g. interactions with friends, family and work colleagues. In ordinary everyday life boundaries between the different forms of education tend to blur, as people often organize education events as part of their everyday experience. However, this holds less true for youngsters in the school going age (4-18 in general). It is in these ages that the distinction between formal and non-formal education is strict, clear and very relevant. Formal education then is the system through which one can advance socially speaking, where one gets grades for activities, knowledge and skills on the basis of which one can choose a certain job raining or academic career. Non-formal education becomes a tool for teachers to enable their students to understand certain principles or to gain certain experiences. For these experiences they visit a museum as part of the curriculum.

The shifting balance between formal and non-formal education

Institutions for formal and non-formal education are rapidly developing solid partnerships in The Netherlands and abroad. A visit to a museum is on the educational agenda in almost every school in nearly every year in Dutch primary education and I have noticed through European and international projects that this situation is not unique. In secondary education students pay visits to a museum as part of their education. The contribution that museums deliver to the formal educational system is at least five fold.

In the first place museums offer a stimulating physical environment. Foreign objects are displayed, stories are told, and increasingly artefacts are displayed in such a way that they can be felt, sniffed, heard, in short: experienced by the visitor. In addition being in a museum means being outside the school, which in itself has proven to provide a stimulus to students.

Secondly museums offer different teaching methods from schools as they have assimilated the methods of other industries. They have developed ingenious ways of communicating non-cognitive attitudes, cultural habits and abstract ideas through the use of media technologies[11]. Think for example about the walk you can make in a zoo through a rainforest park with proper mist and bird sounds all around. But think also about fake cro magnon people behind a glass wall whom you can hear “speaking” to each other when you push a button. In short: museums offer an experience as a teaching method rather than a a guide presenting the story to an audience (although that also happens in museums!).

This possibility to give the educational visitor an experience is the third contribution that museums deliver to the formal educational setting.

Fourthly the collection the museum offers sets it apart and makes it a valuable partner. By nature museums - as houses of muses following the Greeks - gather, collect and preserve historic artefacts or artefacts from other cultures. They do so and have being doing so in a systematic and orderly way for many years. This means that in addition museums have generated an unparalleled body of knowledge regarding these artefacts, their physical components, geographical background and historical context.

Last but certainly not least museums offer a valuable contribution in that they are closely related to the schools as they are partners, but are still outside the curriculum. Where the school has to cover all core goals, has to grade students, flunk them for exams etc. museums do not have to do so. Their educational programmes museums assist schools in achieving these core goals, however they have no final responsibility for achieving these core goals nor are they responsible for grading students. This gives museums a certain freedom in their approach of the subject at hand and of the students who visit.

It is precisely in these five points that the formal education of the school and the non formal education offered by museums meet. Implicit in these five points is where school and museum can be complementary in their education. The formal curriculum in Dutch schools, both in primary and secondary education, is guided by core goals and competencies. With reference to the debate outlined earlier in this article these goals are mainly skill and knowledge oriented. The museums I interviewed over the course of my consulting life professionals clearly stated that their purpose is to work at the level of attitude. This is perhaps most poignantly phrased by Dutch museum director Pieter Matthijs Gijsbers, former director of Orientalis[12] and currently director of the Netherlands Open Air Museum[13]: “Orientalis uses education as an instrument to achieve understanding and respect for others in our multi-religious and multicultural society.(…) Orientalis stimulates its visitors to think about the question how they themselves can constructively deal with the centuries old, philosophical and religious traditions that have developed in our society. “ [14]

Looking at the future of education

The concept of what is a museum and what is a school and the very image of the school as the alfa and omega of education seems to be coming to an end. Other institutions that have thus far been qualified as institutions for non-formal education are rapidly professionalizing. Thus the concept of what is a museum seems to be shifting at a rather fundamental level. Let’s push this point a bit further: looking further down the road a convergence between museums and schools might be a future vision for museum[15]. Where museums slowly but surely shift to an educational redefinition of themselves, formal educational institutions face a continuously growing demand for a broader educational programme that goes explicitly beyond knowledge and skills. Seeing these developments and seeing the increasing professionalism with which museums undertake to fulfil their educational role, one might wonder to what extent to geographical boundaries between schools and museums are of practical or moral relevance in the future. Are these borders not merely artificial and mainly motivated and kept alive by tradition and the monetary flows that reflect this tradition? I cannot help but wonder what would happen if we would put these practical constraints and divisions to the site for the sake of theoretical exploration and then look at education and who provides it. Looking from that perspective, would then the divide between schools and museums still be relevant and necessary? Would it still be defensible? Or would we then come to the core of education, namely the question of what we want students to know, to be able to do and perhaps most importantly to be as persons? I wonder whether the answer or answers to notably this last question would lead us to a functional division between schools and museums. I think not. I think that rather it would lead us to define a curriculum on the one hand and a number of places where (modules of) this curriculum can be followed on the other hand, without making a distinction between institutions. Pursuing this line of argument would obviously have far reaching practical, organisational and even philosophical consequences with regard to the nature of education, but should that mean that we should not pursue it and take it to its very limits to then explore how we can restructure today’s educational system? Which is perceived to be in a crisis, precisely because the direction and goals of education are unclear? Will in the future the museum become a teacher? And will schools and teachers become part of a museum, as phenomena that illustrate an era in which society focussed on the geography and geographical borders between educational institutions rather than on the educational content proper, an era in which the “where” was seemingly more important than the “what”? I cannot substantiate whether this future vision is where museums and schools will end up down the road, nor do I think that at this point in time this is the most important thing to do. What is important, is that this picture, or in rather more brash terms: this future vision, by taking the current developments to its extremes, illustrates the tension that museum face in defining their identity. Looking from the outside in, this tension might seem rather trivial, but looking from the museum inside out, this tension is far from trivial and is the focus of intense moral concern. To move away from the museum identity in terms of moving away from its collection, may also mean to move away from a body of knowledge, that was build and is advanced on the basis of the collection, of continuous research to objects and the building of human networks on the basis of this. For what educational institution is the museum without its collection?

Due to an incredible amount of spam on my blog I haven't been blogging for a while. Fortunately Thomas managed to solve the problem, so I am happily back on the blogging front. With a reflection on a meeting that took place about 1,5 weeks ago.

Stichting Techniekpromotie has different sponsors and partners. Amongst the sponsors is a hard core of companies that have stood by de Stichting from the start. These sponsors connect with the Stichting mostly through personal contacts: they know the chairman of the board or the director or so and personally feel strongly about the cause. On the basis of this connection they have managed to put their companies power behind the Stichting. Which is a great thing. But the Stichting is developing, there is a new vision, mission and ambition and on top of that the Stichting is growing. This calls for professional development of all parties involved, including the sponsors. It also calls for a joint growth between the Stichting and the sponsors.A growth in which sponsorpartnership is related to but not uniquely depended on the personal link. 

 Joint growth in the sense that you have to ask: this is our vision, aim and ambition, this is our dream, does that suit you? And if so, how do you feel you can further the cause? What are you willing to contribute? And how can the Stichting reach out to other potential partners? These and other questions need to be answered. Two ways of doing this: either think yourself or....ASK.

I am always an advocate of asking the parties involved how they view your questions and what their answers are. For a number of reasons, but most notably the fact that asking the parties involved is a great way of learning about their vocabulary, about what is important to them and it gives a true feel for what connects you. Your work is to come up with the initiative, to bring the parties together and to formulate your questions and - perhaps most importantly - to truly listen. 

Over the years I have noticed that in libraries, museums and the like this way of working is underdeveloped, to say the least. It's also something I was discussing over the speakers dinner for the DISH 2009 conference with Josh Greenberg of New York Public Library. But somehow museums, libraries and the like feel - either consciously or subconsciously - that they should know it all, that asking is litterally out of the question. Incredible. Especially because if you think it all up yourself the story you tell become a very, almost uniquely rational one. And that is not going to work. 

The sponsormeeting we had for the Stichting made entirely clear that the Stichting stands on the cross roads of rationality and passion and that the "sales pitch" should reflect that. Of course, we need to come up with key performance indicators, and rightly so, but the companies could define very well which ones they wanted to see and where they draw the line. And that is very reasonable. They want to see how many people the Stichting reaches each year with the programme, what the cost per kid is and a few other figures in that department. Further on they were adement that we communicate our vision with passion, because that is what binds them and what makes them want to go the extra mile for the Stichting even trying to convince colleagues and competitors to become a sponsorpartner.

So once again, as I said in the piece about market research for libraries and museums, do go out there. Converse, create a dialogue and be proud of what you can offer but also dare to ask and dare to doubt. Your best consultants in this field are really your sponsorpartners, how ever small a core you might have.  

Woke up today with the news that in The Netherlands the number of unqualified teachers in high schools has grown quite exponentially. Too few teachers push schools to allowing physics teachers to teach e.g. chemistry. Saying that compentent makes qualified. Oh dear. I was in need for something nice. Some good news. So I looked back on the past 9 years and decided to catch up with some of the old PULMAN and PULMAN XT team. Getting word back was really, really nice and made me remember good times.

On the other hand having worked extensively on the cross roads of education and marketing for non formal educational institutions, (public) libraries and museums I am also somewhat taken aback by how little seems to have changed at times. PULMAN explored - mainly on a policy level - how public libraries, museums and archives could enhance cooperation, reasoning from the idea that for clients the distinction between these institutions is decidely less important that it is to the institutions themselves. Now, nearly 7 years on the same movement is still the ambition of many institutions and digitization enhances disclosure of information for customers. But in the back office the struggle still continues and it is a slow process to merge, in which sometimes IT is wrongly used to force policy decisions. Tempting, but a no goer. An iterative process between policy and IT, yes. IT to force policy decisions....recipe for disaster:-).

But before I drift off, let's stick with the happy memories that the contacts with the PULMAN team brought back, IT being the key factor in general for easily getting in touch, and linked in more specifically. I am only now starting to realise how great a tool that is, to catch up, to find where people are at and what they are doing and to get reconnected without immediately having to share a project or something concrete. Just catchting up is really, really nice. I do hope to reconnect with many colleagues from the past years!

For the new sector institute for public libraries (siob) I am currently making an inventory of educational opportunies for library directors, middle management and front office. It concerns an inventory for internal use only at the moment, and it will serve as background documentation for the sector institute to determine their own course regarding potential developments of professional training and education. Frankly I am astounded by the wealth of training, workshops, masterpogrammes, post bachelor programmes and sector specific training available. 

Based on what the preliminary inventory I have made so far, from my professonial opinion I would say that there are three major points for action. The first action point is to disclose the wealth of programmes available for libraries. By disclosing I mean to categorize (as I am already doing in a very simple way) in a databse, structured per target group, subject, etc. This is not as simple as it sounds (see my blog on website struggles:-)) but I do think that it would be a first major win. Secondly I think that to somehow relate the available courses to competency profiles and job profiles would be helpful, but I would make that part of a larger marketing and educational effort. Because so much is available but knowing the (public) library I would say that you also need to stimulate them to look for training that goes beyond the day to day work, that introduces a dimension rather more on the process level. This could be done by a strong content related marketing effort, thus also educating the (public) library sector on the power of education. Which they usually deliver but to what extent are they themselves taking a professional stance on their own professional education? An open question, to which I think the answer will vary enormously. Thirdly I would think that it would be useful to offer a workform that allows people, notably directors en management, to make the translation from more generic master and post bachelor programmes to the specific (public) library sector. From my experience in similar trajectories for notably science centers, public libraries and project management trainings I have given, this translation to the specific environment, with its particular (unwritten) laws supports the participants to actually apply the knowledge in their own work. Thus progressing the public library sector.

And then there are other possibilities that could be explored such as negotiating framework contracts with training programmes to establish discounts for library participants. Contentwise the option that I would see as an opportunity as well is to develop a specific strategic librarianship programme, focussing on developing the library for the future. Here some librarians already discussed this, but having made the preliminary inventory now I would be able to give some more direction. I feel it should at any rate include a futures thinking component, teaching about scenario making, strategic business thinking about innovation and development, some risk analysis component and a cross over with industry where it is widely known how innovation work (many, many failures:-). That would be first inclination, I'll let future thoughts on this know. I now just need some time to let it all sink in.

Probably this week somewhere my client and I will take a closer look at this first inventory and we will have some preliminary discussions on the next step. I'll keep you posted, but meanwhile: should you have any library training that I should be aware of, let me know! And the same for any thoughts you might have re librarians training, education, and needs for education.

Yesterday seemed a bit of an Africa day in my office. It was the 20th anniversary of Nelsons Mandela's memorable walk to freedom. A moment to remember as his quote "education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world" has become my motivation, motto and compass. The full quote is: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world…It is through education that a daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that a child of farm worker can become the president…Only education will make lasting changes,” was one of Mandela’s enduring statements on education. And thus we had a small toast to commend this truly great man.

And then Africa arrived in my office via skype: Rilwanu Abdulsalami from Kaduna State University in Nigeria skyped in to briefly catch up. We worked together when I organised eIFL.net IP conferences for library directors in Africa and Asia in Istanbul. A great experience and Rilwanu's skype brought back happy memories. The conferences were a great success, judging by the reactions from the participants on the spot and in their feedback forms, but the running up to the conferences were not all bliss. Getting the visa, arranging the right flights with as few visa-needing transfers as possible, finding a good location....there were moments of stress. But we did manage to get librarians from nearly 50 countries together, not once but twice over the course of two years and that made it so very worthwhile. With all the visa regulations and the work that goes in, one could easily be tempted to not even try and organise such a conference. Which would be a shame, because with the right people, time and effort and some (not even a large!) budget it is very possible and a rewarding mutual educational experience. With the help of local organiser Byzas Tours and the good spirits of all participants, speakers and the team at eIFL.net. 

Looking forward to what next week will bring. At any rate another New Zealand day including catching up with New Zealand Futures Trust!

One of the projects I am managing is the cooperation between the three technical universities in the Netherlands (Twente, Eindhoven and Delft) for non-formal education for 4-15 year old children (and their teachers and parents). The idea behind this cooperation is - in a nutshell - that we can organise one front office for clients whereas in the backoffice we can organize structured mutual learning and sharing of ideas, dreams and development processes. One of the first joint products that we have started to work on is the joint presentation of the educational projects, products, programmes and what have you. It sounds almost ridiculously simple, a natural start....As ever reality bites. How do we describe our products, programmes and projects? In The Netherlands we have so called learning targets (determined by government) of what should be covered at the end of primary school and per year in secondary school. These targets are what schools have to teach, and achieving these targets takes up nearly all the available time in a school year. For clarity: the targets describe the content of what should be taught and learned, but not the method. One can thus choose to use non-formal education as a means to teach certain topics. Thus at first sight making it a rather logical choice to indicate exactly which specific targets our individual programmes/products cover. But, how would that reflect on the vision that the non-formal education offered wants to offer a learning experience that goes beyond these targets? Beyond the thought of the tool box learning that seems to govern the entire educational system? The dilemma: not mentioning the targets covered makes potential clients skip further to other sites, mentioning them would potentially contradict the vision behind the activities offered. Mentioning the price is another question mark. We all know that for our (potential) clients the price is a (important) selection criterium. But none of the universities wants the price to be an obstacle for delivering the education.... The dilemma: not mentioning the price can scare (potential) customers away as they may go to others who have clear pricing, but mentioning the price might scare (potential) customers away as they cannot afford the price mentioned and do not feel room for negotiation. In addition the universitied do not wish to come across as a commerical supplier of non-formal educational programmes. They are universities for whom education is central, not the financial profit. For whom the content related contact with the other links in the educational chain is what counts. How will we harness that properly? How can we make it attractive and valuable for (potential) customers and remain true to the roots, aims, objectives, intentions and dreams of the founding fathers? Not to mention the questions and dillemma's that pop up regarding how to describe the products, how to define a limited yet clear list of topics to classify the large number of projects, programmes, events, workshops etc on offer. And the possibilty for taylor made programmes. In short: a good and seemingly operational first step leads to all sorts of dicussions with strategic, political and tactical dimensions. And so step by step we now find ourselves in an iterative and interactive process in which increasingly more layers of the universities become involved. And yet we are still aiming to have the joint website up and running by the end of March. 2010 that is. The operative consultants word being "challenge" I believe:-) I'll keep you posted.